• Non ci sono risultati.

MOUNTAIN LAB

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Condividi "MOUNTAIN LAB"

Copied!
23
0
0

Testo completo

(1)

GIANLUCA PIOVESAN

MOUNTAIN LAB

UNIVERSITA’ DELLA TUSCIA

CIME A MILANO, 12. 12. 2017

(2)

1. Agro-Forestale:

Bioeconomy

2. Ambiente, territorio e comunità:

Turismo sostenibile

Cambiamento climatico: effetti sugli ecosistemi agro-forestali di montagna e loro resilienza;

3. Strategie di sviluppo sostenibile: aspetti ambientali, socio-economici e governance locale

- Strumenti innovativi per la pianificazione multifunzionale e la gestione sostenibile del territorio;

- Casi di studio eccellenti nella conservazione della natura, nel restauro ambientale e nella tutela del paesaggio: l’esperienza dei Parchi e delle Riserve;

- Capitale naturale ed economia circolare;

- Modelli di gestione multifunzionale degli ecosistemi agro-forestali e del business

• Obiettivo: gettare un ponte tra ricerca e innovazione nella montagna appenninica tramite la formazione e il

networking 2

Verso un sistema integrato tra ricerca, didattica e terza missione

(3)

Forest development stages (Jeschke) Loss of final stage

Most of forest associations in Central Europe, described by phyto-sociology are degradation stages, or pioneer / intermediate stages of forest development

In functional restoration programs studying of old-growth (OG) stands

and historical landscapes is key to describing the reference conditions

associated with to natural forest ecosystems.

(4)
(5)

WHC, Krakow, 7 luglio 2017

(6)

6

(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)

Altitudinal limit of the beech range on the Eastern Alps (1400 m a.s.l.), at the boundary with the alpine belt (mixed stands with

larch and Norway spruce)

(11)
(12)

At the southern limit of beech range

The Fonte Regna old-growth forest: beech mixed with the evergreen holly

oak (Quercus ilex)

(13)
(14)

An old crossdated beech: 530 years

(15)

The Italian old-growth beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) forests network: a tree-ring approach to explore the functional ecology in temperate

ecosystems

#RIF! #RIF!

#RIF! #RIF!

#RIF! #RIF!

#RIF! #RIF!

#RIF! #RIF!

#RIF! #RIF!

#RIF! #RIF!

#RIF! #RIF!

#RIF! #RIF!

#RIF! #RIF!

#RIF! #RIF!

#RIF! #RIF!

#RIF! #RIF!

#RIF! #RIF!

#RIF! #RIF!

#RIF! #RIF!

#RIF! #RIF!

#RIF! #RIF!

#RIF! #RIF!

#RIF! #RIF!

#RIF! #RIF!

#RIF! #RIF!

#RIF! #RIF!

#RIF! #RIF!

#RIF! #RIF!

#RIF! #RIF!

#RIF! #RIF!

#RIF! #RIF!

#RIF! #RIF!

#RIF! #RIF!

#RIF! #RIF!

#RIF! #RIF!

Year

Tree -r ing res iduals Num ber of c ores per ye ar

Year

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 TIM

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 TOA

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 MOT

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 HSA

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

0 20 40 60 80 100 CLE

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 DSW

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRA

16

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 NIM

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PAU

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PEC

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 TOB

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 TOL

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 TRE

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LAT

<100 yr 100-200 yr 200-300 yr 300-400 yr

>400 yr

The high mountain Old-growth

network: unique longevity among temperate

deciduous biome

390 y 350 y

450 y

560 y 560 y

570 y

450 y

510 y

(16)
(17)

The recent divergent growth trends (Alps vs Apennines) follow major regional climatic changes

APENNINES (-)  increasing drought  mortality vs enhanced longevity?

ALPS (+)  warming + N deposition (?)  decreased

longevity? Faster turnover?

(18)

Cluster analysis grouped sites by species and bioclimatic position.

Bioclimatic position more important than species.

The multispecific tree-ring network

(Period: 1949-2000; 6 species and 47 sites)

A lp s A p enn ines Hil ly sit es

M e d it e rr an e an p in e & oak f or e sts

(19)

Beech populations are arranged in bioclimatic belts according to altitude

Bioclimatic Units identify areas of homogeneous climate-driven dynamics

Growing season length

Drought Growth Rate

Frost Risk

(20)

Central Apennines Eastern Alps

OG forests reflects better than managed

ones climate

variability, and are less impacted by increasing drought

[equilibrium with environment, higher

homeostasis]

(21)
(22)
(23)

http://www.iufrobeech2018.com

Riferimenti

Documenti correlati